Well, Norman says a lot of things. But, in reality, the only “evidence” we have for his existence is the writings of the early christians, who had a motive to lie about it. He may or may not have existed. I don’t know. The early christians could have taken a real person and made him out to be larger than life, or they could have invented someone out of whole cloth. It is reasonable to take either position — or no position, for that matter.
But Norman says it has to be hate. But, seriously, how is that sensible. If I think Apollo never existed, does that mean that I really believe but “hate” him? There are plenty of writings about him as well. Maybe, according to Norman, it means that I “hate music.” Actually, knowing him, he’d probably make that accusation. How about if I question the account of Romulus and Remus who were supposedly raised by a wolf? Must that also be out of “hate”?